It should be quite clear to everyone by now the Democrat’s strategy to re-elect Obama this fall will be to divide and conquer. What is new in Chicago style politics? Pitting the haves versus the have-nots is an age old strategy of the left to win elections. It has traction with those who feel disenfranchised because of their lack of motivation or strong work ethic. Everyone should be the same, right, isn’t that what is taught in our public schools these days, and big labor unions insist on? After all, it is a matter of fairness says the president to take from the successful and reward the unsuccessful.

Believe what you will, but this is not what the country was founded on. It was founded on hard work and sacrifice. It was founded on the principle if you started a business and succeeded, you profited from your investment. Along with that concept was providing jobs for others to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The concept was a day’s work for a day’s pay. Whatever happened to that old-fashioned idea?

The problem with liberals is they have such selective short term memories, and they know so much that isn’t true according to Ronald Reagan. They are obsessed with Romney’s success and accumulation of wealth. Apparently they have forgotten their standard bearers the Kennedys and Kerry of a few years back. Perhaps, their objection to Romney is because he accumulated his wealth the old fashioned way; he earned it instead of inheriting or marrying into it. Liberals aren’t really very complicated when you look at their motives. An Iowa Hawk blog boldly stated: “Apparently, I’m supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine.”

The slothful have been around since biblical days. The Apostle Paul chided those who didn’t work, shouldn’t eat (2 Thessalonians 3). Most everyone from my generation and before was too proud for handouts. It was shameful to ask for other people’s money. You earned a living by the sweat of your brow. Government was established for the protection of the country, and not for charitable reasons. According to the founding fathers, charity was not written into the Constitution.

James Madison, Father of the Constitution and our 4th president, anticipated the preamble-gives-government-permission-to-do-all-sorts-of-things-for-which-it-lacks-authority argument. In 1794, Congress appropriated money for charitable purposes.

An incensed Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”